Peogeess of Egyptology.
sucessively, (1) tlie two extra-canonical works, the SiSa;^ and ttoi/jl^v, which
figure in the list, the first being the ancient Didaclie, distinguished from
the later (Syriac) Didascalia; (2) the sequence of the books in this Canon,
wherein the place of the Epistle to the Hebrews represents an arrangement
earlier than that of the Sa'iclic version; (3) the studious exclusion of
apocryphal books, notwithstanding older Alexandrine usage and (4) the
subsequent influence of Athanasius' Canon, which the writer shows to
have been greater in the Western than in the Eastern Church. In regard
to the first of these sections it may be again observed (v. this Eeport,
1897-98, 60) that the faulty form diskaliM is paralleled in other Coptic
texts; and in regard to the third, that though Prof. Zahn denies
Athanasius to have intended the Arians and Meletians by the "heretical"
authors of apocryphal works, an as yet unpublished fragment of this same
Festal Epistle actually names the latter sect as responsible for the con-
demned books (v. Eeport, ib. 61).
A second fragment, preserved at Oxford, of the above-named letter of
Athanasius has been printed by Dr. C. Schmidt0 (v. Eeport, ib. 60), who
takes occasion to combat several of the views in Z aim's article.
The rich man of whom Lazarus in the parable begged is named
"Niniveh" as is well known, in the Sa'idic version. Harnack has shown
that this strange name can be traced to " Phinees " in the third century.
Prof. Eendel Harris now proposes7 palaeographically to explain this as
a gradual misreading ofthe.E'ft dives (or some such phrase), once found,
he suggests, as explanatory text to a pictorial illustration of the scene.
The " Strassburg Gospel fragment " of Dr. Jacoby and Prof. Spiegelberg
has received a few further criticisms, among which may be mentioned those
of Dr. C. Schmidt,s who severely handles several features of the publica-
tion, and of Dr. Wernle,9 who regards the theological conclusions arrived at
as mostly premature. Prof. Deissmann, in an allusion to the same publi-
cation,10 recalls an interesting and puzzling statement from the journal
of E. E. Eleck (1838) to the effect that Peyron had found in Paris the
complete Coptic text of the " Gospel of the Egyptians." Peyron certainly
examined and in part catalogued the then limited Sa'idic collection
of the Bibliotheque Eoyale, as notes &e. in his hand testify; but I
know of no MS. at present there for which any such title could be
It may here be noted that the dispute between Prof. Spiegelberg and
Dr. Jacoby on the one hand, and Dr. C. Schmidt on the other, which arose
out of the above-named publication, has been vigorously maintained11;
but as it is no longer solely concerned with scientific or literary questions,